Many people (myself included) will read a book or watch a documentary because it talks about a subject and expresses the same opinion that they already have formed on that subject. They read / watch mostly to confirm their (ill?)formed opinion and back it up with more information. However, surely, there are times when someone watches a documentary or reads a (non-fiction) book and changes sides of the fence. What I'm contemplating is the difference in ability of a movie vs words on a page (or a screen or a kindle or whatever) to capture emotional attention and cause the viewer/reader to change sides of the fence.
When watching a documentary, the producer/director/whoever has control of what you see, hear, and to some degree feel (touch-wise, i mean, as sound can hit your touch-nerves). It seems that a skilled director could do a very good job of leading the viewer's thought processes, distracting from criticism, and drawing out conclusions to his/her liking. Much more so, I think, than an author can do simply with words.
But is that really the case? Is there some skill level that can turn the tide? A poorly-done documentary could merely highlight that the producer wanted to shine light on their subject rather than make a convincing argument, while a highly skilled writer could do a much better job.
On the flip-side of the screen / page, there is the viewer/reader. Are viewers dumber than readers? I like to think so... but there are a lot of trashy books out there (quickly being replaced with trashy tv shows?)... Can a skilled writer fail to capture the emotional attention in a book that a mediocre documentary-maker can formulaically derive from the bell-curve of viewers?
No comments:
Post a Comment